LONE RANGER:250 mil gets you canceled but 215 mil is just right ? (1 Viewer)

[Ejanss]

It's a western. And Hollywood makes so few westerns I feel I have to go see it--whether I'll like it or not. And I probably won't. But the Lone Ranger origin story still resonates with me just as the Superman one does. They're part of my cultural DNA. Although, granted, I still haven't gone to see MAN OF STEEL.

I used to watch the old Lone Ranger tv show with my dad when I was a kid. My 10yr old wants to see this. So I am going with my Dad and my son. Hope it's good.

It's okay to like the Lone Ranger as a character. I like him myself.
But in our complex modern world, think carefully about the consequences of your actions: By rushing to see THIS movie--with the CGI elephants, and the Shanghai Noon chase, and the werewolves that aren't there, and the weirdo-Pirates-Rango stuff--just for the sake of abstractly honoring the Ranger as a character, what message are you sending to Disney?: That THIS is the Ranger movie you were waiting for? That they did it RIGHT? That you want MORE of it?
Are you just going to lie to them like that? Oh, sure, it may seem like a "white lie", since it's all for a good character you admired and a childhood you want to relive, but remember, even the most harmless lie goes not unpunished--Isn't "Oh, sure it's not much, but I just have to be there!" how we got saddled with the Scooby-Doo and Simpsons movies in the first place?

Remember, when fighting for Truth and Justice, be aware that in dispensing Justice, the Truth must be hard and sometimes hurt.

 

[dpippel]

I may of course be wrong, but from the trailers it looks like just another frenetically paced/edited actioner with lots of CGI and stuff gettin' blowed up real good. Films of this nature have become so generic they're almost interchangeable. Haven't we seen enough of this kind of stuff? And The Lone RANGER??? Come on. Do I detect a whiff of "Wild, Wild West" here?

 

[Greg_S_H]

Yeah, I don't know what kind of movie would be for me--I'm content watching long form drama such as Breaking Bad--but this and Pacific Rim are indicative of the kinds of movies Hollywood churns out by the dozen now. I will never say they are bad movies, nor will I watch them even for "free" on cable. Just not my thing at all.

 

[Ejanss]

I may of course be wrong, but from the trailers it looks like just another frenetically paced/edited actioner with lots of CGI and stuff gettin' blowed up real good. Films of this nature have become so generic they're almost interchangeable. Haven't we seen enough of this kind of stuff? And The Lone RANGER??? Come on. Do I detect a whiff of "Wild, Wild West" here?

Think the whiff of WWW you're detecting (no, no robot spiders here because Barry Sonnenfeld wanted to put them in a Superman movie) is one of the now most frequent causes of big-scale flops: The "On A Roll" Factor.
The point at which a studio thinks a franchise is now completely self-selling that they can alter any faintly resembling franchise to fit it, only to find out...uh, hey, we weren't THAT crazy about it, okay?

Sonnenfeld gets handed Wild Wild West, and thinks, "The audience expects me to make Men in Black!"
Hasbro gets the rights to do Battleship as a movie, and says "After all, we ARE the studio that gave you Transformers!"
And Disney gets a summer Bruckheimer movie and thinks, "Well, Depp's in it, and it's summer action, it's gotta be Pirates!"

(...No, it doesn't. Sheesh. )

 

[Malcolm R]

And Disney gets a summer Bruckheimer movie and thinks, "Well, Depp's in it, and it's summer action, it's gotta be Pirates!"

(...No, it doesn't. Sheesh. )

Though it seems many of the same thoughts were expressed about "Pirates" before it was released (over budget, Depp's performance, etc.).

I think LR looks fun. I'll be there.

 

[todd s]

A couple o early reviews have been very positive.

 

[dpippel]

We'll see, but early "reviews" are typically more marketing/press releases than anything else.

 

[Vic Pardo]

It's okay to like the Lone Ranger as a character. I like him myself.
But in our complex modern world, think carefully about the consequences of your actions: By rushing to see THIS movie--with the CGI elephants, and the Shanghai Noon chase, and the werewolves that aren't there, and the weirdo-Pirates-Rango stuff--just for the sake of abstractly honoring the Ranger as a character, what message are you sending to Disney?: That THIS is the Ranger movie you were waiting for? That they did it RIGHT? That you want MORE of it?
Are you just going to lie to them like that? Oh, sure, it may seem like a "white lie", since it's all for a good character you admired and a childhood you want to relive, but remember, even the most harmless lie goes not unpunished--Isn't "Oh, sure it's not much, but I just have to be there!" how we got saddled with the Scooby-Doo and Simpsons movies in the first place?

Remember, when fighting for Truth and Justice, be aware that in dispensing Justice, the Truth must be hard and sometimes hurt.

I believe you're overthinking this. For one thing, the film is going to be a huge flop, so it doesn't really matter what any of us do. And how will Disney react if it's a flop? The likely reaction will be: no more westerns during the years it will take to forget that LONE RANGER flopped. (I mean, it's been 32 years since the last LONE RANGER movie flopped.) It's not at all likely that they're going to look at the boxoffice figures and conclude: "Oh, we should have made a good Lone Ranger movie, a serious one with serious actors in the roles and an emphasis on plotting and characterization and a deep respect for the character's origins and fan following." Sorry, but it doesn't work that way.

If it succeeds, it might mean more westerns. Maybe not more good ones, but at least something.

 

[Steve Schaffer]

Think the whiff of WWW you're detecting (no, no robot spiders here because Barry Sonnenfeld wanted to put them in a Superman movie) is one of the now most frequent causes of big-scale flops: The "On A Roll" Factor.
The point at which a studio thinks a franchise is now completely self-selling that they can alter any faintly resembling franchise to fit it, only to find out...uh, hey, we weren't THAT crazy about it, okay?

Sonnenfeld gets handed Wild Wild West, and thinks, "The audience expects me to make Men in Black!"
Hasbro gets the rights to do Battleship as a movie, and says "After all, we ARE the studio that gave you Transformers!"
And Disney gets a summer Bruckheimer movie and thinks, "Well, Depp's in it, and it's summer action, it's gotta be Pirates!"

(...No, it doesn't. Sheesh. )

It wasn't Barry Sonnenfeld who wanted the giant mechanical spider in that Superman movie, it was producer Jon Peters--who also produced WWW. Kevin Smith reveals this in his "Evening with Kevin Smith" where he details his experience as one of the many writers tapped by Peters to submit a treatment on that Superman flick.

 

[Vic Pardo]

I found an interesting take on this film in Anne Thompson's blog, Thompson on Hollywood:

http://blogs.indiewire.com/thompsononhollywood/the-lone-ranger-stars-johnny-depp-as-buster-keaton-as-well-as-hans-zimmer-western-score

And here's a quote that seems particularly relevant here:

[font="Georgia;font-size:13px"]But as a moviegoer, while the picture is indulgently long at two hours and 29 minutes, there is much to look at on that screen. There had better be. From the period sets, CG horses and buffalo and real trains to Monument Valley vistas, this is one gorgeous movie, set in classic western territory, post-Civil War, period, in 1869. The filmmakers wound up shooting over four months in the most glorious locations in four western states: California, New Mexico, Colorado, and Utah, in stunning 35 mm. There is serious craft on display. (The Academy screening this weekend was packed.)[/font]
Western fans, at least, should enjoy "The Lone Ranger" (although that aging demo will not a blockbuster make, nor will this be likely to recoup any shortfall overseas).

 

[Edwin-S]

I believe you're overthinking this. For one thing, the film is going to be a huge flop, so it doesn't really matter what any of us do. And how will Disney react if it's a flop? The likely reaction will be: no more westerns during the years it will take to forget that LONE RANGER flopped. (I mean, it's been 32 years since the last LONE RANGER movie flopped.) It's not at all likely that they're going to look at the boxoffice figures and conclude: "Oh, we should have made a good Lone Ranger movie, a serious one with serious actors in the roles and an emphasis on plotting and characterization and a deep respect for the character's origins and fan following." Sorry, but it doesn't work that way.

If it succeeds, it might mean more westerns. Maybe not more good ones, but at least something.

How do you make a serious LONE RANGER film with serious actors? The character is the exact opposite of serious: a masked man riding a white horse, whose best known line is "Hi Yo, Silver, away". This character was designed for high adventure, not drama. It's amazing how many people seem to have forgotten that, including most movie critics, who now seem to think every film should be written as socially conscious dramas, full of angst and deep observations of the human condition.

 

[mattCR]

There is a huge difference between high adventure and zany hairbrained comedy

 

[mattCR]

And I think Django Untamed was a fairly successful western

 

[Ejanss]

How do you make a serious LONE RANGER film with serious actors? The character is the exact opposite of serious: a masked man riding a white horse, whose best known line is "Hi Yo, Silver, away". This character was designed for high adventure, not drama.

The goofy version we got of the Green Hornet a couple of years ago sort of obscured the fact that THAT series, on radio, was originally supposed to be a modern-day updating of the Lone Ranger. (Literally--Britt Reid was John Reid's great-great-great grandnephew, a fact probably not allowed to be mentioned in either film.) And out of cowboys-and-injuns context, it's easy to see the concept of the character: A masked "outlaw" avenger that even the real outlaws are afraid of.
Problem is, every movie adaptation keeps trying--and then protest too much in claiming it's not trying--to bring in the pop-cultural baggage of treating the Ranger as symbol of the kiddie-TV days of 50's westerns, something even the oldest target demographics doesn't even remember anymore. Growing up in the late 70's/early 80's, I can't recall any Western show on local TV reruns apart from Bonanza and Wild Wild West, and the less said about movie adaptations about the latter--I'd have gladly watched Ranger reruns if any backwater station had showed them; as it is, I've had to go with the various streaming-channel reissues of the series trying to cash in on what they thought was a "movie version of the old series".

 

[dpippel]

I'm in my mid-fifties and trust me, PLENTY of people in my age group remember watching Clayton Moore and Jay Silverheels on TV every afternoon.

 

[Edwin-S]

There is a huge difference between high adventure and zany hairbrained comedy

Sure, but the problem is that audiences now consider themselves so "sophisticated" that a straight up LONE RANGER story would be ripped apart as an unintentional comedy, instead of a deliberate one. Hollywood doesn't think these old serial characters can work in a film if there is no comedic angle. JOHN CARTER seemed to prove them right on that point. It was played seriously and look what happened: a critical and box office flop.

If the choice is a critical failure and box office success as a "hare-brained" comedy or a critical and box office failure as a "serious" film then the choice is easy: brainless action/comedy FTW. Not that I'm saying LR will be a box office success in its current form. It just has a better chance of being so than if it was played straight.

I mean, really, the film is being critically lambasted as an action/comedy. What would happen if they had tried to play it seriously?

 

[Edwin-S]

The goofy version we got of the Green Hornet a couple of years ago sort of obscured the fact that THAT series, on radio, was originally supposed to be a modern-day updating of the Lone Ranger. (Literally--Britt Reid was John Reid's great-great-great grandnephew, a fact probably not allowed to be mentioned in either film.) And out of cowboys-and-injuns context, it's easy to see the concept of the character: A masked "outlaw" avenger that even the real outlaws are afraid of.
Problem is, every movie adaptation keeps trying--and then protest too much in claiming it's not trying--to bring in the pop-cultural baggage of treating the Ranger as symbol of the kiddie-TV days of 50's westerns, something even the oldest target demographics doesn't even remember anymore. Growing up in the late 70's/early 80's, I can't recall any Western show on local TV reruns apart from Bonanza and Wild Wild West, and the less said about movie adaptations about the latter--I'd have gladly watched Ranger reruns if any backwater station had showed them; as it is, I've had to go with the various streaming-channel reissues of the series trying to cash in on what they thought was a "movie version of the old series".

The problem is that Hollywood is incapable of making these old serial characters relevant to today's audience. Hollywood doesn't believe that modern audiences will accept these characters if they are played straight; therefore, any resurrection of the characters almost automatically gets the "comedic" treatment. The ones that don't, such as John Carter, flop anyway. People just cannot take these types of characters seriously anymore.

Look at Frank Miller's treatment of "The Spirit". I think that is one of the few instances where I felt like setting my home theater equipment on fire as a decontamination procedure. After watching that abomination, I wanted Frank Miller to be tortured until he signed a waiver promising to never go near Will Eisner's "Spirit" character again.

 

[Ejanss]

The problem is that Hollywood is incapable of making these old serial characters relevant to today's audience. Hollywood doesn't believe that modern audiences will accept these characters if they are played straight; therefore, any resurrection of the characters almost automatically gets the "comedic" treatment. The ones that don't, such as John Carter, flop anyway. People just cannot take these types of characters seriously anymore.

We're seriously that dedicated to pushing the John Carter button until our finger gets sore, aren't we?
We've been over the John Carter issue so many times in this thread alone, it's not fun anymore--Carter had a dozen strikes against it (March madness, hunger games, psychotic marketing) that trying to blame the film itself is clueless to the point of quaint. People only complain about the film itself if they actually leave the house to SEE it, and that was the biggest obstacle that year.
A problem the Ranger doesn't seem to be suffering from--Quite the reverse, in fact, a loopy sabotaged mistake that too many people want to leave the house to see, because they've already concocted a better film in their own imaginations than Bruckheimer and the Pirate crew delivered onscreen. Almost literally all the two movies have in common is a whopping big budget, and it's a slight difference being a big-budget movie going head-to-head against the squealyy-tween-fangirl epic for a dicey two-week window, and being the July 4 summer school's-out blockbuster studio entry for the year with none daring to stand in your path: In one of the two cases, there are a lot fewer outside factors to shift blame onto.

 

[Edwin-S]

There was a lot of mention of John Carter in here? I didn't go back and re-read the entire thread. I considered JC relevant, because it was a straight up telling of the story in a non-comedic manner. Also, I did leave the house to go and see the film. Personally, I thought it got shanked unfairly. It wasn't as bad as it was made out to be. Everyone was complaining about it being derivative,. Why wouldn't it be? Hollywood has been plagiarizing from Burrows for years and not attributing the source. If I want to bring up John Carter as an example then I'm going to bring it up. Your only choice is to read or not read what I'm saying about the film.

I'm comparing the two films, because the biggest thing they have in common, outside of budget, is the use of characters that originated in pulp serial novels, comics, radio shows and so on; characters that a lot of modern film audiences have barely heard of. If people are going out to see LR then it is obvious that the trailers have indicated to people that they are going to see a film with a lot of action and comedy......pretty well the standard recipe for an entertaining blockbuster.

 

[mattCR]

We're seriously that dedicated to pushing the John Carter button until our finger gets sore, aren't we?
We've been over the John Carter issue so many times in this thread alone, it's not fun anymore--Carter had a dozen strikes against it (March madness, hunger games, psychotic marketing) that trying to blame the film itself is clueless to the point of quaint. People only complain about the film itself if they actually leave the house to SEE it, and that was the biggest obstacle that year.
A problem the Ranger doesn't seem to be suffering from--Quite the reverse, in fact, a loopy sabotaged mistake that too many people want to leave the house to see, because they've already concocted a better film in their own imaginations than Bruckheimer and the Pirate crew delivered onscreen. Almost literally all the two movies have in common is a whopping big budget, and it's a slight difference being a big-budget movie going head-to-head against the squealyy-tween-fangirl epic for a dicey two-week window, and being the July 4 summer school's-out blockbuster studio entry for the year with none daring to stand in your path: In one of the two cases, there are a lot fewer outside factors to shift blame onto.

Yeah, I watched John Carter.
It was terrible.

Considering the 51% at RT, I'm not alone in that assessment. http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/john_carter/

To me it appears both films suffer from the same basic problem: throw lots of money and messed up stories on the screen, they think, and the audience will show up. It just doesn't work